This is another investigative endeavor of an ongoing 'aspect' in the alleged cover-ups involving spokespeople we're aware and respect...
What we've been doing is trying to unravel the weaving that appears these suspect sanctioned groups on the Internet, on occasion, throw up here and there, in the know, questionable truth's, whose basis, appears misleading and redirecting our attention of the elite's control planning stages that will affect our freedom's future. Respectively, it seems to me this is being conducted by supplanting real case scenario theories by confusing the information's inconclusive determination's derived from a variety of material channeled sources.
Why? Are they thinking for us better to live the lie than the truth? For me, I wonder their real motive?

Dex

I have a request, gentlemen; in light of the information I'm going to share (which may or may not be partial or total disinfo) I would ask that you hold off posting for awhile so that this doesn't get buried in the many cut-n-pastes and crossposts (no offense intended, so please do not take any).

I've been checking and cross-checking the information that I received to see if it is more or less likely to be true or not. I have to be very careful not to rush this to the public as if it's all true, and also avoid the tendency that the skeptics would have in tossing it out in knee-jerk fashion as some sort of disinfo designed to lead us down false paths. Time (and the reactions at SNEDs, not to mention the additional evidence I've requested) will tell.

Update From Inside, Or Another Top-Down PsyOp?

The source of the image below came to me from someone who, if the evidence pans out, is a very very powerful politician who received it in turn from one of my original sources from 2005. As this source explained it, this information was given to him in the event "anything happened to [the original holder of the information]." As the new source says, "Anything happened." Now, this intimates yet another death of a 'patriotic insider'. Would my actions be different if I thought that laughable or deadly serious? I have to make sure it doesn't cause me to deviate from my path, which is on course. In light of the accompanying evidence, I have to err on the side that the intimation is more or less truthful. If it turns out to be fraudulent, I have back-up information that helps provide the rationale for the scenario.

The image below is obviously a variation on the standard American passport, of which I have one so I can compare. This image shows one that appears longer than the standard one, the better to accomodate the word "Sion" at the top. Now, where do we remember that word from? I recalled immediately Dadmiral's admonition to Dan regarding he and Marcia, "Remember, the two of you must walk alone to Sion."

On the upper right corner are the names of the NINE members of Sion. The first thing that strikes me is the mention by Nancy Lieder that, following the theft of the presidency in 2000 by the Bush/Cheney gang, the "rump group" of Majestic left would NOT be allowed to use the cloaking 'travel service' the STO Zetas had provided Majestic in the past. This was one of the few things (technologically speaking) that the 'good guys' gave Majestic, so they could consult with one another without having to worry about cross-border travel. If, as appears to be the case, the treaty with the 'good guys' wasn't renewed because of the presidential theft, then the remaining, rump group of Majestic would have to use passports. They also (to avoid public disclosure, which standard passports allow for in the public reporting of cross-border traffic) might wish 'special' status for themselves. Therefore, their successor group (Sion) would of needs ALSO have to have 'special' status for cross-border travel. That would present a somewhat reaonable rationale for the first question, which would be "why a special passport for these people?"

The second most glaring fact to me is that there are "NINE" members. Where else do we hear of NINES? Virtually every step of the way; the TAU-9 Treaty, which is ALSO mentioned in the accompanying documents (as 'an alleged ET treaty') is a plain NINE; they made Dan supposedly wait until April NINE 2005 for him to sign the "Request To Admit", a costly delay that forced the document to have to be entered into the court record via oral motion that went unaknowledged 48 hours later. [Note: I bet they were 'snickering in their shirt-sleeves' at that one too, like they did over the undecipherable power-plants of the 'saucers'.]

The third most glaring fact is that Dan is Number 2, and has re-taken his born name, "Crain". (In fact, he prefers to be referred to as "The Most Honorable Prof. Crain" once again, according to what the accompanying scuttlebutt evidence shows.) This isn't surprising to someone aware that Dan's primary emotional object is Marci, not his wife Deborah. Dan had taken Deborah's maiden name as his own surname, but that dynamic has taken back-seat to the one between he and Marci, especially since Marci is apparently S-4 on the list of NINE. (According to Dan's own words to me, Deborah had little to no clue to the meaning of the 'Priory of Sion' and so wasn't properly appreciative at first.)

Fourth, and actually even more important, is the presence of George Tenet on this list. Why? Because of Dan, Tenet was given the boot from Majestic, and replaced by Porter Goss. Dan made a powerful and public statement against Tenet on April 29th, 2007, at SNEDs (we can pull that out after we get over the shock - or derision, take your pick - of these new 'revelations'.) Therefore, how could he end up on this list? I had to go back to my records, and sure enough.....Tenet was in power when the Tau-9 was signed, and it was that signing that authorized this last group to preside over the preparation "for the time preceding the Coming of the Comet of Ages"....by name. Therefore, Dan could rail about Tenet publicly, only to sit at the same conference table with him at a later date. (This also augered well for bamboozling the public, who would have a hard time reconciling the public, demonstrative Dan vs a vs his role conspiring with him in the halls of power.)

Fifthly, or higher for some, is the presence of the name "Bush" as No. 5. This is Bush Sr., "Poppy", who was apparently quite personally complicit in the assassination of JFK and JFK Jr. I know, I know how Dan implicated Chickenhawk Cheney in the Afghan poppy drug trade (AHAH! "Poppy"!) in his public damnation of Tenet, and apparently his indirect implication of him in the 9/11 crime has also not endeared him to "Poppy", but supposedly Dan and Marcia have a majority of this group behind them (if the accompanying scuttlebutt evidence pans out) in the plan to dissolve the national sovereignty of the American nations. Apparently Marcia thinks she is doing the 'common man' a favor by insisting the lesser countries have a place in the new 'one-world government' that is preparing to introduce the Amero, the super-highways for Mexican trucks (Bravo, 110th Democrats for voting it down yesterday!) etc, a-la the European Union. Poor, poor misguided Dan and Marci; a place was made for them at the table by the selfish Zetas who insisted they be 2 of the NINE members of Sion --- set to replace Majestic, due in part to the fact that the real Majestic ceased to exist following the 2000 presidential theft. "Adjourning Majestic" only ratified what had already occured. So, now they work hand-in-glove (again, ALLEGEDLY) with Kissinger Associates (remember he was MJ-4) to effect the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" of North America (google it up; it's hiding in plain sight!). Old relationships die hard, so it isn't a surprise to hear that Sion is working hand-in-glove with ex-Maji Heinz.

Lastly, but maybe most importantly, Dan and Marci are supposedly working on a one-time-use-only "Looking Glass" (using a strange code-name, until I found the original comic-cartoon origin fit right in with Dan's 'taste' in pop-culture.) For what, you may ask? Why, what else? For the exact

"date and location of the impact......of the Comet of the Ages."

So, once again, we hear of a T-2-type of catastrophic event (that isn't Planet X, CAN'T be Planet X, ANYTHING BUT PLANET X!) that suggests an "impact", which of course can be relievedly explained away at the last minute with a cry of "it's going to miss us after all!" which will be true, but totally totally ignores the consequent poleshift anyway. This, even supposedly given that Dan warns AGAINST the use of a 'Looking Glass' device.

So, is this true? The correspondent seems to indicate, and goes on to spell out, that he and his cohort KNOW this is a BS scenario, and that its purpose is to 'eclipse' the main fact of the approach of 'Planet X' by obfuscating the information in info that SOUNDS similar, carries some of the same weight as ZT, but without the nasty reality of just WHO has been bamboozling the public since he was selected to sit in the Ofal Office (malaprop intended). It also assumes that any "Looking Glass" device would be accurate in its 'date'.

Could this be partly true, and possibly the TRUE information was intercepted and a semi-truthful version inserted in its place (a la the Majestic Documents)? This way, maybe only 1 or 3 'facts' might be at odds, but just enough for some people to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Or, it could be completey false, and has as its only goal the object of throwing everyone here COMPLETELY off. If so, someone went to an AWFUL lot of trouble to "throw me off track" and the destiny of my 'message' doesn't deviate one iota, but it should give pause for all readers to absorb this and take a moment to reflect before firing from the lip.

Therefore, I'm requesting that you all give your posts some time to ferment before picking up the regular programming.
_________________
Address to send information helping expose the Coverup:
Dondep or Dagwood
2433 E. Tropicana Ave
#420
Las Vegas, NV 89121

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Karin

Hi Dex and All, Maybe this doesn t need saying, but I ve thought about The Truth for a long time, ever since college philosophy courses made me think about it.

Message 2 of 2
, Sep 15, 2007

0 Attachment

Hi Dex and All,

Maybe this doesn't need saying, but
I've thought about The Truth for a long time, ever since college philosophy
courses made me think about it. I have settled for now on making a
distinction between Truth and truth.
The big T kind is beyond my ken, is beyond all of our abilities to know by
rational thought. You can surmise, assume, conjecture, distill, define, dig
up, etc. but, although the process is important, exciting and fun, in the
end you will still not know for sure unless it was part of your little t
truth.
The little t kind is different: it comes from within your self and it has
surety, no matter anyone else's right or wrong. This is the kind of truth I
can live by, and with.
Whether there are dissemblers and disseminators of big T truths does not
really matter if you stick with the little t's. Keeping an open mind at all
times about big T's is the trick to it, I guess. If you are open, no one can
dissuade you from your stance; and wherever you set your interest and your
intent will be right.
Their motives? I guess to keep us from the simple little truths that matter.

Best,
Karin
PS---now I think I'll sit in the sunshine and enjoy the birdsong :-)

> The below posting is from the Golden Thread forum.
> http://www.thegoldenthread.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82&start=750&sid=756731d7aeaec2195d3981bf11efd82b
>
> This is another investigative endeavor of an ongoing 'aspect' in the
> alleged cover-ups involving spokespeople we're aware and respect...
> What we've been doing is trying to unravel the weaving that appears these
> suspect sanctioned groups on the Internet, on occasion, throw up here and
> there, in the know, questionable truth's, whose basis, appears misleading
> and redirecting our attention of the elite's control planning stages that
> will affect our freedom's future. Respectively, it seems to me this is
> being conducted by supplanting real case scenario theories by confusing
> the information's inconclusive determination's derived from a variety of
> material channeled sources.
> Why? Are they thinking for us better to live the lie than the truth? For
> me, I wonder their real motive?
>